Facts:

• The parties got married on 30-3-1997.
• Thereafter, on 28-7-1998, both of them were separated and have been living separately since then.
• During the subsistence of the marriage, within 5 months of separation, the appellant/husband remarried and is now having a child in the new wedlock.
• While they were living separately, the respondent/wife filed a suit seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty by the appellant, complaining of physical and mental cruelty.
• The Court was particularly concerned with the fact that the appellant/husband remarried within 5 months of separation.
• The Court observed that if, during the subsistence of a valid marriage, the husband remarried, it would amount to mental cruelty towards the first wife, even though that specific cruelty was not alleged in the petition.
• The appellant's willingness to cohabit with the respondent while continuing the second marriage was not accepted by the Court as a reason to deny her a decree for dissolution of marriage.
• The Court noted from the examination that the appellant had remarried and was having a child from that marriage, which was going on happily.
• The Court held that forcing the respondent to live with the appellant could cause disharmony in the second marriage as well.
• If the respondent is unwilling to be a co-wife, she cannot be compelled to live with the appellant under such circumstances and is entitled to seek a life of her own.
• The respondent is now only 23 years old, an apt period to start a new life.

Issues:

• Bigamy is permitted as per Muslim Law, so an appeal was filed praying to reverse the decree of divorce.

Conclusion:
The court was of the view that there is no reason to reverse the decree taking into account not only the future of the parties to this case but also that of the second wife and the child born in that wedlock.

The fancy assertion of the husband that a Muslim husband can have more than one wife is also no reason to reverse the decree. Bigamy is permitted as per Muslim Law under exceptional circumstances. The circumstances under which it is permitted also have to be taken note of.

As at present, such circumstances do not exist. Not only that, even to have a second wife, certain conditions have to be satisfied by the husband including the financial capacity, the physical, and the capability of treating more than one wife without discrimination and to give both of them equal conveniences and considerations in life. 

Even if the appellant contends that he can equitably treat both wives without discrimination, it is a human impossibility. Even if the possible, that Condition alone is not sufficient. Instead of patching up the differences, the appellant was planning for a second marriage.

In the light of this conduct, the finding of the court below that "the respondent could not be expected to treat the petitioner equitably with his second wife who is now along with him", cannot be stated to be faulty.

In such circumstances, he cannot justify his second marriage and contended that he can treat both equitably. Therefore, that contention cannot be accepted, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The appellant had married another, within five months of separation from the respondent's wife , which itself manifests the cruelty towards her. If the decree is reversed, it will affect the harmonious life of the second wife as well. 

Therefore, the appeal fails and is dismissed.